But fine words do not produce food and you have to ask why, as we gear up for the 2007 election, the government has taken this opportunity to wear its concern for the most powerless in our society on its sleeve. After all, it was a full decade ago that the Constitutional Review Group first recommended an express constitutional guarantee that, in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child should be paramount.

Why the sudden concern?

That may seem a cynical response to a reform that, as the Ombudsman for Children Emily Logan has said, is far from academic and will have real and wide-ranging consequences. But the record on children's rights and services speaks for itself and inspires little confidence that there is any real will to change children's lives in practical ways.

Four days after the Taoiseach announced the referendum, a young boy appeared in court. The 15-year-old is a notorious lawbreaker with 29 convictions for burglary, theft, assault and public order offences. He has been out of school since early childhood and in 2004 he was suspected by gardai of being responsible for 60% of the burglaries in Rathfarnham and Tallaght. At that stage, he was assessed as having a mental age of five. He is now drug-addicted and is soon to be a father himself.

He first came to the attention of the law in 2002 when he was 11, a year after a few thousand other words in the form of the enactment of the Children's Act of 2001 were supposed to change his life.

That theoretically groundbreaking piece of legislation provides clear paths and penalties for courts to deal with juveniles. Its child-centred philosophy is modern and reflects best international practice.

But the trouble is, as we show on our news pages, the resources needed to make its provisions work simply aren't there. The Children's Act 2001 was a pledge to intervene in the life of that now rather frightening 15year-old, but what we do in reality is of little real benefit, either for the child or the society that has to suffer his law-breaking.

Whether it is probation, garda juvenile liaison schemes or the tougher option of schools for young offenders and, as a last resort, St Patrick's Institution, the services are either very good but unavailable to most children because there aren't enough places or, as in the case of St Patrick's, plain awful.

The constitutional amendment is in theory supposed to help protect children at risk from abuse because it will make it easier for courts and social workers to intervene in their best interest. But these very social workers are stretched to the point of invisibility. There is still no after-hours service;

care home places are in short supply and, in some cases, poorly managed.

Then there are the children with special needs. The waiting lists for treatment of youngsters with conditions as diverse as autism and anorexia are shameful. Name a problem and there will be a waiting list and too few facilities to deal with it.

The government may have thought it a good idea to marshal the troops 12 weeks before the next general election with a touchy-feely message about the rights of children. Yes, constitutional protection is needed and yes, it should be endorsed with the strongest wording possible. It's right that it should be easier for long-term foster children to be adopted, and it's right that children's needs in marital break-ups are ranked equally with those of their parents. But voters would be wise to remind the politicians they can see the fudge in the sweets being offered.